Politics The Death of the Nation State / Alternative Politics

[Scouse]

So then. Mr Lennon asked us to imagine there's no country, nothing to kill or die for.

But Is there an alternative to countries?

Turns out the well-defined nation state isn't all that old of a construct:

Before the late 18th century there were no real nation states... If you travelled across Europe, no one asked for your passport at borders; neither passports nor borders as we know them existed. People had ethnic and cultural identities, but these didn’t really define the political entity they lived in.

I know the very ideas expressed below terrify some but it turns out that them and their views are the by-product of a recent invention:

nation states still thrive on a widely held belief that “the world is naturally made of distinct, homogeneous national or tribal groups which occupy separate portions of the globe, and claim most people’s primary allegiance”. But anthropological research does not bear that out... Even in tribal societies, ethnic and cultural pluralism has always been widespread. Multilingualism is common, cultures shade into each other, and language and cultural groups are not congruent.

To strengthen the hand of the nation state nationalism has been rammed down our throats since birth, so people who cling to the view that ethnic homogeny is the norm or that we're being invaded by other cultures are to be pitied for the abuses that nation states have subjected them to to make them feel that way. Their views are evidentially further from how humans have lived and thought throughout the ages.

people always have a sense of belonging to numerous different groups based on region, culture, background and more. The claim that a person’s identity and well-being is tied in a central way to the well-being of the national group is wrong as a simple matter of historical fact

That article is interesting on a number of levels, not least that it loosely posits the model that we may be moving towards (hinted at by someone who worked at one of the highest levels of political offce).

I could have stuck this in the Europe thread, but it's about much more than the EU and the petty squabbling over brexit. It's about alternative government and the ideas and structures that are being posited and being brought about to govern us.

Any similar things we find, bung in here for discussion. But lets attempt leave personal sniping out (and "comedic" thread derailing remarks about how that'll never happen around here "lol").

That article does show some of the areas where the EU (and other supranational government) has failed and highlighted some of it's successes and given ideas of how things could move forward...

 

[Shagrat]

Similar to book I read recently which posits that the nation state is a fairly recent 'invention' and is on its way out and we're now moving into market states where nations matter less than corporations and trade.

The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History: Philip Bobbitt: 9780385721387: Amazon.com: Books

 

[Raven]

We are just in a transitional period. Where it was once kings it is now (or soon to be) corporations.

 

[throdgrain]

And won't that be worse.

 

[Scouse]

And won't that be worse.

Well, if you read the article it hints perhaps not - especially if war gets in the way of profit for most business.

It's certainly not automatically worse...

 

[Raven]

War in the 3rd world does not get in the way of profit at all, war is a huge business.

Remember, we are talking enormous corporations with fingers in many pies. Oil, weapons, construction etc Nothing better than blowing everything up, grabbing the oil then rebuilding it all. The people actually in power never see any of it ofc, they just see the hard cash and power at the end.

 

[throdgrain]

Absolutely. WW2 set up the USA to be the state it is today, and destroyed us at the same time - and that destruction was in some ways engineered the US in the first place.

 

[Job]

I guess people have blamed labels for the worlds problems, and the push to slowly eradicate them can be seen as a positive, except I can assure you, we will replace them with something a lot more dangerous.
Gender
Nation state
Sexuality
Colour
Culture.
Achievement
Consequence.
They are being eroded away by endless pondering of their reality.
Sometimes though we need stakes in the ground to steady our desires.

 

[Scouse]

Any of you guys actually read the article?

 

[Raven]

Nope.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Just written an assignment on how much of a dick 1700s dad actually was, who only gave to charity if he had somehow wronged his arsehole god, there were books of lists and shit. What a set of cunts.

soo...er yeah, history and social stuff is off the table for a few days.

If Godwin hasn't been invoked in 2 or 3 pages I might read it.

Edit, I am sure @Job will give it a fair old crack, we might even get onto eugenics.

 

[throdgrain]

Any of you guys actually read the article?

Nar fuck that

 

[fettoken]

Well. That's a lengthy history lesson for sure, and she's taking her time to get to the point.

And these things take time, evidently. I'm all for letting time evolve our way of life, but it should be 'organic', let it happen when societies have matured. Speeding it up by collectively opening borders and trying to superimpose change isn't the right way to go, in my opinion.

There's probably a latin proverb for it. Doing something to affect the situation versus doing nothing. Both can be equally dangerous.

@Scouse Did you have a point, or closing argument/report or are you simply pointing out we are advancing as civilization?

Interesting article nonetheless.

"Even as our economies globalise, nation states remain the planet’s premier political institution. Large votes for nationalist parties in this year’s EU elections prove nationalism remains alive – even as the EU tries to transcend it."

You could argue that nationalism is the reaction to superimposed change.

 

[Job]

Rather obvious really, can't say I've given it much thought, though that rather european centric explanation pretty well describes how I presumed they evolved in our recent history.
The article hints that the state came first, then people aligned to it for their well being, seems to suggest it forced their hand, it's a natural process, far subtler than this article suggests and has a slight tinge of globalist bias.

 

[Gwadien]

Uhh, war. What is it good for?

Globalism, progressiveness, unity.

 

[Bodhi]

Started reading it, then got the impression I was in a meeting with some Marxist Beard Strokers from the NUS.

What I have noticed however, is that when an article's title is a question, the answer is usually No. So, in this case, I'm guessing the answer is also no.

 

[Raven]

Off and on I am about half way through it (and I will finish it!) waiting for the author to get to the point.

However from points raised here (And I think the agenda is once again, omg racists!) Nation states or lack thereof do not stop people from getting pissy about overpopulation, overpopulation does that regardless.

Nationalists, come in all flavours and not all nationalists are xenophobes or think their particular nation is superior to others, only an extremely tiny minority does that. For example, its tremendously fashionable to be a Scottish nationalist at the moment.
It is also very fashionable among the sneering left to hate Britain and England and condemn those who are actually quite proud of their place in the world, as racists. A tiny union of nations, still important and still relevant and a leader in many areas, science, art, foreign aid, health, education, more than holding our own.

 

[Raven]

Edit, if its distribution of power you are talking about then "traditional" borders are becoming more and more irrelevant, disputes are settled amicably on the whole, certainly in the west.

Yes we may all have to have a passport to travel abroad but that is largely an administrative thing now, there are very few restrictions on movement.

 

[Gwadien]

Nationalism comes around when people are bored and when people have no sense of unity.

Was it Weber that said a Government loves a problem simply because it makes the people easier to control?

Which I agree with, and history dictates that this is largely the truth - look at the height of the cold war, sure there were still nationalists, but there wasn't a great deal of change around firmly NATO countries likewise for the Communist nations, simply because everyone was fighting to turn other countries into their way of thinking.

Now? There's no cold war. If people actually becomes aware of the re-militarisation campaign which they are doing then im pretty sure the nationalism will start to disappear in favour of a 'lets protect what we already have' thinking.

 

[Scouse]

Swhen an article's title is a question, the answer is usually No. So, in this case, I'm guessing the answer is also no.

Interesting you come to that conclusion. That's despite the whole article being about how nation states in their current form are relatively new, have worked differently in the very recent past, that other models are being moved towards (the EU being an example (though not the thread topic) - a supranational state and with modification there's no reason that model couldn't be significantly enhanced), and that politicians are actively moving us towards them.

As you say, you're guessing. But did you read the whole article? If you had, perhaps you'd come to a different answer...

 

[Scouse]

I think the agenda is ...

Don't. The agenda is to discuss different forms of government. If I wanted that debate again I'd have put it in the europe thread, but I specifically am not interested in it here other than cause / effect, and then only if it's relevant.

 

[Job]

It's a nice idea..put it alongside world peace, not eating animals and respecting peoples religion.

 

[mooSe_]

Interesting article, thanks for posting. I don't think I will participate in this thread though.

 

[Bodhi]

Interesting you come to that conclusion. That's despite the whole article being about how nation states in their current form are relatively new, have worked differently in the very recent past, that other models are being moved towards (the EU being an example (though not the thread topic) - a supranational state and with modification there's no reason that model couldn't be significantly enhanced), and that politicians are actively moving us towards them.

And there you have the problem. The politicians may well be moving us towards supra-national states, and that most ridiculous of concepts, One World Government, however the amount of separatist movements around the world (Scotland, Quebec, Basque, Catalonia, Those strange people in the South of Belgium, etc etc) makes me think that that's not what the population itself actually wants.

So if they do actively move us towards this new model, expect many many more Brexit type votes in the near future.

 

[Scouse]

You're only stating half of the equation there @Bodhi. The points you raised are already covered in the article.

I can't see any downside with supranational government if it means more active global cooperation on the things that require it as long as local government has real devolved power.

If government is working for the people, they feel that they're getting their voices heard and things make sense on a local level then the population won't give a flying fuck about the global issues that are being handled outside their jurisdiction.

For example: If local government is supporting and creating jobs / wealth for the local people everyone would buy into the climate change targets enthusiastically. At the moment one of the biggest problems is that some of joe cunt sees climate change as the reason he can't get a job and he'd dig up coal and fuck the world as long as he can put food on the table. And if the distant government who never listens to his voice is telling him "this is what we need to do" he's less likely to agree - and who can blame him?

 

[Job]

And who exactly would be in charge, would the entire world vote for them?
It would end in war, as it is we can mumble about how useless voters are in our own culturally contained space.
Imagine half the world not liking the other half for who they voted in.

I think what you really want is a world dictatorship that basically sing to the tune of 'Scouses solutions for the perfect harmonious existence.'

 

[gohan]

I'll be in charge if you like. Not got anything on until February. That should be enough time to fix the world!